The writer is the editor and translator of Why I write: Essays by Saadat Hasan Manto, published by Westland, 2014. His book, India, Low Trust Society, will be published by Random House
aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk
The smallest, excluding seven independents, is the Congress with 12. In the middle are the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with 25 seats and Omar Abdullah's National Conference (NC) with 15. I say this is unusual because the possibilities for government formation are several. A 44 seat majority can be produced by the following combinations: the BJP plus the PDP, the BJP plus the NC with a few independents, the PDP plus the NC with a couple of independents or with the Congress. This range of options is uncommon in elections in our states because of polarisation. In reality, the options are not that many and the PDP and the NC, who are the biggest parties in the valley, cannot really be partners. It is the BJP that must decide who it should ally with, whether the PDP or the NC.
The PDP and the BJP are at opposite ends of the state's political spectrum. The Muslims of the valley, many of whom carry the separatist sentiment, are represented by the PDP. The BJP represents the Hindus of Jammu and the national sentiment that Kashmiris align with the rest of India. The two parties have totally different constituencies and voters. None of the PDP's legislators is Hindu while none of the BJP's legislators is Muslim.
Strangely, the BJP is less 'untouchable' in Kashmir than it was elsewhere in India (though of course no longer with the rise of prime minister Narendra Modi). At the moment, however, no government is in sight and the parties are maneouvering for the best deal.
Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar has accepted that the “obvious combination in purely arithmetical terms is the BJP going with the PDP. Together, they would have some 53 seats in a House of 87, thus ensuring an apparently stable majority. I stress the word "apparently" for hidden behind the bare figures is the incompatibility of programmes and purposes and the cleavage along religious and regional lines."
He adds that "all the 25 seats the BJP has won are in Jammu. In Kashmir, the BJP lost its deposit in 35 of the 36 seats it contested. The PDP did secure two seats in Jammu, but 26 of its 28 seats are from the Valley. The virulent rhetoric of the election campaign showed the wide distance between the two parties in their respective approaches to the governance of Jammu and Kashmir."
Aiyar thinks this is a problem because "the BJP then and earlier accused the PDP of being "soft" on militancy and inclined to be understanding of the protestors who are collectively labeled "stone-throwers". The BJP loves to project itself in Jammu and the rest of India as the most muscular of Indian parties, determined to firmly and unrelentingly stamp out militancy and infiltration at any price. If the BJP were to go "soft" while in the Jammu and Kashmir government, it would be castigated by the RSS and the Sangh Parivar and lose much of its appeal in Jammu and the rest of the country; if the PDP were to take a hard and cold line, it would instantly lose much of its new-found support in the Valley." I do not think this PDP+NC+Congress fantasy is viable.
According to a report by Sheela Bhatt of Rediff, the problem in its negotiations with the PDP is the BJP's demand is that a Hindu be made chief minister. Bhatt reported that Mufti Sayeed, "a leader who is too experienced not to understand the BJP game, reportedly, told one BJP leader, 'If I accept your demand to have your man lead the government in Srinagar I will not be able to face the people in the valley.' The BJP leader responded, 'If I accept your demand, I won't be able to face people in the rest of India.'"
Even if one has an objection to picking chief ministers based on their religion, it must not be forgotten that the BJP doesn't have a Muslim to put up. In case there is an even partnership and a sharing of the chief ministerial term, the BJP's man will necessarily be a Hindu.
I don't think this is a bad thing and in my view a partnership between the two extremes would be good and a moderating influence on both.
Between 2002 and 2008 (the Jammu and Kashmir assembly has a six year term) the PDP had such an arrangement with the Congress. First Mufti Sayeed was CM for three years and then Ghulam Nabi Azad for three. The PDP should take a similar deal with the BJP.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 4th, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (29)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Gp65: Let me roll this back a bit.........my view that I tried to express in my first comment was that saying that the State is secular but the government functions on sectarian / religious basis........IS ALL RIGHT ?......no, in principle its not. The way I read Blackjack and Rahul's explanation was that this situation exists in fact ....possibly not in law......and THAT is how it is......and I agreed. You've always been very helpful, so : Is Golnath Agarwal a male or female ?....... he / she seems to have a ' crush ' on me........O! please, please let it be a female.
Let's put it this way,....personally was not that anti Bharat at all. Perhaps more moderate. But one of YOUR comments in the Disqus Blogs simply changed the equation. The outlook.
ET mods - please permit response to someone who has written to me.
@Parvez: The perception about Modi does exist. Such perceptions are deliberately fanned by its political opponents and media supportive of those parties. But I have yet to see policies by the central overnment that are discriminatory. It is policies rather than perception that determine if the state is secular or not. I specifically referred to J&K because this article related to the election in J&K. But like I said, you spoke about anti-Muslim speeches as a way to get votes. Please provide links which indicate Modi used hate speech against Muslims to gain votes in any of the recent state elections or the parliamentary elections held earlier in the year.
@Rangoonwala: Just calling a party anti-Muslim does not make it so. The communal record of BJP ruled states is distinclt better than those ruled by Congress and allies. Furthermore, many of the riots (in BJP ruled states and elsewhere) were started by Muslims. While the state clearly has a role in protecting all its citizens, the victimhood that you seek o paint for Indian Muslims is nit based on reality. If AMU was funded by Waqf boards or was funded by say Saudi Arabia, it could claim the independence you suggest it should have. When it is funded entirely by University Grants Commission, then denying political protest by a natuonal party is not correct. The reality is that Hindus are being driven out of Pakistan and seeking asylum in India. One is yet to see the reverse i.e. Indian Muslims seeking asylum in Pakistan.
@Parvez: Grow a spine. And stand up for your convictions. For what you think. What you believe. You are a pushover.
@BlackJack: Ok....that's reasonable explanation......so I'm learning. @GP65.......I was talking in general and not related to Kashmir......and again talking about the perception that has been created by Modi / BJP on this subject. If you claim it does not exist, then obviously we don't see eye-to-eye on this.
Please allow response to two people who have written to me.
@Parvez: Are you implying that the BJP campaign in J&K based on hate speech and demanded vote in the name of religion? Please provide any speech of any BJP leader campaigning in J&K who did that. If you can find any speech by Modi who was by far the biggest draw during parliament elections during the campaign fro m Sept 2013 to May 2014 which has hate speech towards minority, please provide url. Yes in a country where most people are religious, vote is sometimes asked in the name of religion. But by no means is BJP unique in this regard. In any event, as long as such ote is not sought by promising discrimination for or against any group, the secular nature of the country is not impacted.
@Rangoonwala: Aligarh university? Yes. It is a publicly funded university and therefore a political party does have the right to peacefully protest in its ground. Also the VC of this university stopped the entry of girls in the university's library saying that they pose a distraction o the male students. . The government intervention to right his wrong was necessary. Sadhvi was wrong in what she said and has been rebuked by the PM. In doing so, it becomes clear that her opinion was her own and did not represent government policy. You say that she was a member of the government. She was not. Only PM and union ministers plus bureacracy of course constitute the government. Just being a member of BJP does not make an individual the member of government.
@Parvez: @GP65 : I do understand the meaning of secular……but your explanation is a bit confusing. My 2 cents - in a country where religion plays a big role, you cannot completely eliminate it from the political discourse; there are consistent appeals to religious minorities to vote for the so-called secular parties - does this not smack of hypocrisy? Modi ran an election campaign based on inclusive development (sabka saath, sabka vikaas), which outlines the objectives of his government, and the constitution of India ensures that the Govt. must be secular. This does not mean that a core segment of BJP voters would not have voted for the only party which targets the majority community (everyone else targets caste and religious minorities). People vote for a variety of reasons (sometimes as simple as the religion of the candidate in a particular consituency) - as long as the Govt. only seeks to fulfill the promises that it has made, why should anyone have a problem.
@Rahul : completely agree.......in reality it works like that. I was being Utopian. @GP65 : I do understand the meaning of secular......but your explanation is a bit confusing. If a party runs an election campaign on the basis of religion and builds hate speeches in to gather votes........and then goes on to head a secular government. It smacks of hypocrisy. I thought @Rahul's explanation was pragmatic and understandable.......thanks to both of you'll.
@gp65: Well,...perhaps you should meditate on what Venkaiah Naidu spewed, recently. Does Aligarh University ring a bell. The debacle that took place. How about Jyoti or is it Jyotri ?,...who called all Muslims ill begotten,[don't know hindi word for it]...the opposite of ramzadehs[?] or something to the effect. You know exactly what she said. Now, these are fully certified card carrying members of Modi's Govt...! Consider the effect of this hate speech on 200 million second class citizens of Bharat. Cannot be uplifting. Besides, Modi, as usual, did nothing. Regarding Modi, his visa was cancelled, by US and the EU. After the riots. And the Bharati Judicial System, is not a shining lighthouse on a hill. Beckoning to the world. "Come ye all, and see how justice is done". Far from it.
ET moderators, responding to response to my comment.
@Rangoonwala: In 2012 municipal elections in Gujarat where Modi was CM, his party won a majority in several Muslim majority areas - a result that was not contested by opponents. Further, his current cabinet has 2 Muslims and 2 of BJP's spookespersons are Muslims - tyhere goes your theory about ALL Muslims hate Modi.
Despite 10 years f intense scrutiny of his role in Gujarat riots by COngress which was ruling at center, absolutely no evidence emerged of his com[plicity in the riots. In fact the evidence that emerged was that he did everything he could to bring them to a halt including summning the army when the neighboring CM refused to send their police to supplement Gujarat police. In India sitting CMs are convicted e.g. Jayalalita and Laloo Yadav. In fact Allahabad high court had also ruled against the then sitting CM Indira Gandhi. So the notion that a sitting CM would have been above the law in India does not stand the test of known facts.
@Parvez: Secular means that the state will not discriminate on the basis of religion. It does not mean that the people cannot vote on the basis of religion. Hindu majority state like Maharashtra where I grew up had a Muslim CM (A R Antulay) but so far J&K which is Muslim majority has not had a Hindu CM. That is fine. As lng as elections are legitimate, the mandate of the voters should be honored and it will be regardless of the religious composition of the elctees.
@Jor El: That must have hurt. Thank you for spewing your vitriol. Proves the point, exactly ! What Modi inspired hindus think of Muslims.
@Parvez The reality of electoral politics is that you have to divide the electorate in such a way that you carry a plurality of votes. A party in India generally sweeps the elections with just 30 % of the popular vote. In the rich countries, the rich vote for 1 party and the poor vote for another so the divide is class. In poor countries the divide is usually caste, religion, language, ethanicity.
@Rangoonwala: Buddy, u dont speak for the muslims of india ... Their fate is none of ur business ...
If the Indian political system is to be proved secular..........than politics should take precedence over religion.
Dipak@observer: PDP is a Pro-India Kashmiri group. Given a chance 99% of POK Muslims wants to join India. There is nothing for them in Pakistan.
@Rohri wala: A hindu Hindutva devotee with a computer, waxing poetic on a hindu paper E T Hilarious. You might as well have just said Hindu Hindu Hindu since the rest of the comment had little meaning anyway.
@Indian: A hindu Hindutva devotee with a computer, waxing poetic on a hindu paper E T
@Bewildered: You should recheck your facts and you can't base your argument on your puerile opinion. Also why did pdp member say that hindu cm will be bad for j and k? you people talk about polarization but you yourself are biggest communal mindset people. asking for sharia in uk , australia and elsewhere and polarize the society and vitiate the atmosphere.
would make a "kath puttly" cm in either case
@Gandharva:
"BJP DOES have a muslim legislator in Kashmir assembly"
Last time I checked Elections India website, all the BJP elected members were Hindus. However, even if there is one Muslim among BJP's flanks, that falls under exceptions, not the rule, and hence the existance of polarization/divide cannot be denied.
Mr Patel is spinning and carrying water for a point of view. Hard to tell which one - from the article. But, one can make a guess from his previous opeds and his pathological hate for Modi. Facts have never come in his way to push his propaganda.
"I don’t think this is a bad thing and in my view a partnership between the two extremes would be good and a moderating influence on both."
The people of IOJ&K have given their verdict in the clearest of forms. The Muslims of the state have in totality rejected the BJP's narratives and plans to abolish Article-370, as can be clearly seen in the election results. BJP won only 25 seats out of 87, all in Hindu constituencies and only by Hindus, and none of their Muslim candidates were elected, rather all lost their deposits. The 60 Muslims elected from various parties and independently represent the Muslim population of the state, and when the polarization is so high, no politician can go against public opinion and commit suicide. What I see is a coalition of PDP+ Congress+Independents+JKNC (possibly), or as last option PDP+BJP with CM from PDP. No other party would allow CM from BJP.
None of the PDP’s legislators is Hindu while none of the BJP’s legislators is Muslim.
This is factually incorrect. BJP candidate for Kala Kote (Abdul Ghani Kohli) won the seat. To put numbers in perspective, thirteen BJP candidates had a winning margin of more than 10,000 votes over their nearest rival. In comparison, no candidate from PDP or National Conference, the two regional parties, won by a margin of over 10,000 votes. Sajjad Lone (PC) won two seats while openly indicating his admiration for Narendra Modi. BJP lost in the Kashmir Valley because it does not have a grassroots organization that can convert latent positive sentiment into votes, and this cannot be built overnight. @ ET - pls publish since it corrects the underlying premise of the entire piece, which is in itself defective.
Factually incorrect Mr Patel. BJP DOES have a muslim legislator in Kashmir assembly. His name is Abdul Ghani Kohli, 71, he won the Kala Kote Assembly constituency in Jammu by a little over 6,000 votes. So I am surprised the whole article is based on the assumption that BJP do not have Muslim legislator in J&K!!
" The Muslims of the valley, many of whom carry the separatist sentiment, are represented by the PDP. "
@author, the above statement is not quite correct. Only about 6% of the total Sunni population of the valley carry separatist sentiments. Of course, these elements are the most vocal and carry out violence. The separatists issued dire warning to teh people not to vote in the recent elections. The people totally rejected their threat and voted in large numbers as indicated by the over 68% voter participation.